Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

@mahgister --

Thanks for the elaborations. Your posts are interesting and informative, but in the context of my previous reply I don’t see a significant take-away from your writings to alter my basic position.

Thanks for your appreciation...

My post was not there to dismiss your point but to point toward his limit...

We all agree that physical acoustics , not only room acoustic, but psycho-acoustic RULE... Even if a system is designed to be the best OBJECTIVE design , it will be embedded acoustically, well or not, in a specific room for an objectively different Ears/brain...

My point is electronical design accuracy of components does not reduce to acoustical and psycho-acoustical accuracy...And what the BEST  gear design does is not the only guarentee for an audiophile experience...It can be necessary to some level but is NEVER sufficient... We need a dedicated room for specific ears/brain if it is a SMALL  room dedicated  for one listener owner  and not a great Hall...

It is not the same CONCEPT of measures accuracy in electronic design, acoustic design and psycho-acoustic measures ...

It is so true that Dr. Choueiri revolutionized acoustic experience of stereo system in a room with his BACCH filters which are based on psycho-acoustics research...The foundation ground of audiophile experience is psycho-acoustic science not electronic design of amplifier or speakers or even of dac and not even the powerful room acoustic ....

In this thread most people use the word accuracy in one way and one meaning , but there is three distinct ways or meanings which can be optimally convergent in an experience or be divergent or not optimal for an audiophile experience ... The electronic design accuracy and the physical acoustic accuracy in a room and the psycho-acoustical measured accuracy...

The OP thread speaking of real versus surreal confuse these three meanings and three accuracy concepts...But what is "accurate" for my ears inner filters and sound perception personal history and training can be inaccurate for other ears...

That was my point...

The only OBJECTIVE common basis for the word accuracy in these three conceptual case is mathematics not the necessary listening subjective experience...But listening music or speech is neither subjective nor objective experience...It is a symbolic form, an interpreted phenomenon...

larsman

10-13-2023 at 09:40am 

I do know what sounds better to me.

I do not know how true it is to what the artist, the producer, the mixer, and the mastering engineers laid down, as I was not there for any recording sessions so cannot make a comparison. 

I'm in this general camp. Also the "smoothness" camp. Who says the bite of a trumpet or electrical guitar can't be a smoother bite and not a harsh brittle edge?

Particularly the comment about engineer, mixer, masterer - all artists in their own right creating a soundscape. AND, ask any one of them and they will tell you: change the playback equipment and it will change (more or less) the soundscape they created on the equipment they used on any recording.

@mahgister ,

No, I speak the most horrible english ever, but far better than I write.

I am not a philosopher, I am a pragmatist. As others have mentioned, there is no such thing as accurate in regards to reproducing the actual event. With most studio recordings there is no actual event, there are multiple small events pieced together in the mind of the mastering engineer. 

It is not so much that an audio system is accurate, it is with the proper recording that a system can convince you you are at the actual event. This in itself is a moving target because it depends on how the individual hears things. There is no way to absolve ourselves from the fact that this is a personal experience.  

What I have noticed, in spite of what I said above, is that everytime I am in the presence of a remarkable system everyone else seems to come to the same conclusion. There is a shared concept of accurate reproduction even if it is hard to quantify. It is one of those, "you'll know when you get there," events. 

Your english mastery exceeded mine ...I am a philosopher but in audio i am pragmatic ...

Doing the best possible with a low cost system/room was pragmatic , as reading about basic acoustics instead of possible  upgrading gear reviews ... Tuning my room was pragmatic ...

😁

There is an "accuracy" of the measures set of electrical parameters in audio material design ...

There is another concept of "accuracy" derived from acoustics basic science parameters and derived from informed musical experience , this is why there is always a consensual agreement when a playback system /room sound optimally ...

I imagine that when you speak of accuracy you refer to the second acception of the word ...

My best to you sincerely in spite of our sometimes disagrements...😉

@mahgister ,

No, I speak the most horrible english ever, but far better than I write.

I am not a philosopher, I am a pragmatist. As others have mentioned, there is no such thing as accurate in regards to reproducing the actual event. With most studio recordings there is no actual event, there are multiple small events pieced together in the mind of the mastering engineer.

It is not so much that an audio system is accurate, it is with the proper recording that a system can convince you you are at the actual event. This in itself is a moving target because it depends on how the individual hears things. There is no way to absolve ourselves from the fact that this is a personal experience.

What I have noticed, in spite of what I said above, is that everytime I am in the presence of a remarkable system everyone else seems to come to the same conclusion. There is a shared concept of accurate reproduction even if it is hard to quantify. It is one of those, "you’ll know when you get there," events.